Hodad

Uh, no. She said, "At least in Somalia they execute pedophiles not elect them." As in, in her view that's a moral plus in the Somalia column. Are we in Somalia? Do we live under Somali law? Is Trump moving to Somalia? Is there any remote risk of him being tried in Somalia? WTF are you even talking about? Not a threat. Not intimidation. Not a call for violence. GTFO.

You are a liar. Full stop. She did NOT call for any individual to be attacked. She did not call for violence. She did not violate any statue. That's comically absurd. And if Trumps bootlicking DOJ were to prosecute her (they would know it was a non-starter) it would be laughed out of court. It's utterly preposterous. She will face absolutely no consequence for this, and you know it. Nor should she. She posed an impossible hypothetical about life and law in another country. "If you lived on Mars, the Martian king would have your drawn and quartered for being a turd." <-- I guess in todays MAGA world, which redefines words for momentary political convenience, I guess I just threatened you. So dumb. Trump was targeted by a registered Republican and a disaffected Trump supporter. That's "your side." And if you just want to list acts of political violence that's a losing proposition for you. The political right has dominated political violence for decades. I know your victim complex is working overtime all the time, but facts are facts. 2025 was an outlier--by miles. And frankly the reaction is a rise in extra-governmental extremism in response to governmental extremism. Everything is at a high boil because every day we march closer to fascism. Study after study after study will confirm that violence is dramatically, disproportionately, perpetrated by the right. CSIS "Right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities, amounting to approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001. By contrast, left-wing extremist incidents... have made up about 10% to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities." Just Security "Data consistently show that far-right extremists pose a much greater threat than far-left terrorists... according to the authors' own data, 13 victims died as a result of left-wing attacks from 2016 through mid-2025. During that same time period... 112 people were killed in right-wing attacks." National Institute of Justice"The number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism... those adhering to a left-wing ideology were markedly less likely to engage in violent ideologically motivated acts when compared to right-wing individuals." ADL "All the extremist-related murders in 2024 were committed by right-wing extremists of various kinds... This is the third year in a row that right-wing extremists have been connected to all identified extremist-related killings."

How many times in the last year has the POTUS publicly endorsed the execution of a member of Congress? (At least 6) How many times in the last 10 years has Trump destroyed behavioral norms, bent and broken law? How many times has the Somali government tried and executed a US president, and is such a thing even remotely possible? No. This is a dumb game. He made a threat. He publicly endorsed a call for execution. She didn't make a threat. Nor did she call for his execution. She posed a hypothetical about life and law in another country. End of story. I have no real interest in Omar's life or brand of politics, but this thread is absurd.

"The left" didn't swear anything up and down. let alone that there would not be a trial. Beyond that, this might be the dumbest apples-to-watermelons comparison in recent board history. The president of the United States, with access to all the powers of government to follow through on the threat, falsely accused US Senators of committing a crime which DOES come with very real penalties. And he literally reposted (seconded) pubic calls for their execution. That is a credible threat. Plus motive, means and opportunity to follow through on that threat. In contrast, a US congressperson implied that Trump is a pedophile and pointed out that if a pedophile (Trump) lived in Somalia, subject to the the Somali justice system, he would be executed. There is no threat there, and certainly not a credible one. Obviously, he does not live in Somalia. She has no such power there or here. There is no means or opportunity. It's quite literally a hypothetical scenario for an entirely different set of circumstances. You'd have to be crazy dumb to think those are remotely similar scenarios. They just aren't. Simply stating that Trump is a traitor to the United States is far, far more like a threat than a hypothetical about if he lived in Somalia. And even that is an accusation, not a threat. What's a threat? threat noun ˈthret Synonyms of threat 1: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage 2 : one that threatens 3 : an indication of something impending There are people on this board dumb enough to not know what the word "threat" means. I don't actually think you are one of them. So I'm always fascinated by the willingness of people to appear dumb in service of political teamism. I don't get it.

There is one way: Just read it in plain English. 🙄 Instead, you want to invent a completely new meaning for it shaped entirely by your political biases.

You're making a fool of yourself again. In no way, shape or form is she calling for Trump to be executed in the United States She's comparing the two countries, specifically the morality of the two countries. She could just as easily said "at least in Somalia they incarcerate pedophiles not elect them." In either case, she's comparing the way the countries treat the pedophile: punishment vs reverence. And in neither case would she be calling for that outcome as a future state. You're welcome to dislike Omar and to disagree with her politics and her arguments, but leave the English language out of it. You just look dumb.

I'll just take this as confirmation that you would keep your pedophile friend's secret until someone asked. 🙄 Because even in the most generous interpretation here, that's quite literally the complicity you're defending. Not even table stakes for human decency.

Indeed, Trump's absurd case failed exactly that badly. With the exception of the cities SCOTUS, most American courts remember this is America, where US Senators --and anyone else--cannot be punished by our government for simply stating the law.

Reporting a pedophile sex trafficker is a ridiculous standard? My expectations are too high? Jeebus. I'll tell you the same thing I told Nationalist: that's just table stakes--the barest minimum for being a decent person. Super basic. If you found out, as Trump must have, that your "best friend" was trafficking underage girls for sex, how long would you sit on that information? Would you just wait until someone got around to investigating it? Even in Reiter's account Trump said that everyone in NY knew, yet neither he nor any other "everyone" engage authorities to put a stop to it? You think the Reiter story is a story about Trump being a hero, but if true, it's really a story about Trump letting many, many more girls be abused and raped. Meanwhile, Trump said publicly that he didn't know-which no one believes. My theory is that he pretends that he didn't know because he doesn't want to explain why he allowed it to go on for years. Got an alternative theory?

What conversation are you paying attention to? Wrong about what? You don't even make sense. Trump told the public that he had no idea what Epstein was up to. A third party said that Trump both knew for a long time and then finally contacted the authorities once an investigation was open. Neither of those is a good thing for Trump. So WTF are you even talking about?

I'm deeply skeptical that he "turned him in" at all. If he turned him in, why would he pretend that he wasn't even aware of the crimes? Why would his say anything nice about Maxwell. But the point was that any time something goes wrong, Trump will immediately throw his associates under the bus to save himself. It doesn't mean that he wasn't taking partaking in his buddy's party favors. It might simply mean that it was time to cut ties for self preservation.

So lazy. No, you don't "find" that. You make that accusation when it's convenient, but there is no magic obfuscatory version of the question that would make Trump tell the public that he didn't know about Epstein's crimes.

Yeah, that's what Reiter said. He claims that Trump said that everybody knows and Ghislaine Maxwell is evil. Meanwhile, Trump himself said: Asked by reporters in 2019 - when Epstein was arrested by federal agents for sex trafficking - if he had "any suspicions" about the disgraced financier, Trump said: "No, I had no idea. I had no idea. I haven't spoken to him in many, many years." On Maxwell: "I just wish her well, frankly. I’ve met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach. I guess they lived in Palm Beach. But I wish her well." What a pickle for the Trump cultists.

10 days, or a few hours? Steady, thoughtful and deliberate--much like the tariff "strategy."

There's a pretty consistent pattern of Trump throwing people under the bus as soon as they catch heat. No matter how close they are, if someone gets caught, he suddenly doesn't know them and they are bad people. He expects total loyalty, but it's a one way street. Better question: If Trump knew about Epstein's crimes and abuses, as he clearly did, why didn't he get them shut down? He had the knowledge, money, and power, and chose to just let the predator continue victimizing girls. That alone makes him complicit, but the reasons why he chose to let the "party" continue are likely far darker.

^^These rantings are from a brain so thoroughly rotted by Fox News and conspiracy thinking that he now lives in his own independent pocket "reality." The Gish gallop of copy/paste debunked grievances is meant to deflect any rebuttal by flooding the zone. Where does one start with a disheveled raving street preacher?

Eh, it's kinda hard to argue that it's not about race and otherness when you have the wannabe MAGA Canadian slinging racist slurs about the topic.🤷‍♀️

Dear dumbass, calling out a racist piece of trash is not virtue signaling. Being "not racist trash" isn't a virtue to brag about. It's table stakes for basic decency. You just happen to be under that bar.

Most watched show in Superbowl history. How was it stupid?

^^ Just a filthy farking racist.

The "otherness" bothers you? You know, some of the best and most important music in history is not in English. Carmen? Don Giovanni, Figaro? I don't think there's any artist that is everybody's universal favorite. I don't listen to Bad Bunny. But he's arguably the biggest artist in the world right now. We're 6 years into this decade and he's been the most streamed artist 4 of those 6. And he's now the star of the most watched Super Bowl show in history. I would think people would be curious as to why he's so wildly popular. And if you don't like it, fine, you learned that you don't like it. What kills me though--but no longer surprises--is the idea that the MAGA clowns were sooooo put off by a brown person performing in Spanish that they literally scheduled their own counterprogramming. Like when I want my kids to try something wildly popular--like a taco--and they are like "No no no!" They don't want to try anything new. They decided it's yucky without so much as a nibble. They just want another goddamn PBJ. -- Although, to be fair, Kid Rock is not in PB&J league. It wasn't even backlash. It was pre-backlash. And I'm absolutely certain that it's grounded in racial and cultural xenophobia.

There is no way that Stephen Miller has not murdered at least one prostitute.

That is 100% true. The second half of that story is that as Democrat leadership adopted a civil rights platform, the Dixiecrats, like Strom Thurmond, and their racist supporters began migrating to the Republican party. The Republicans needed voters. The Democrats had already claimed the civil rights platform, so thr Republicans adopted the racist voters opposed to civil rights who felt abandoned by the Democrats. That's how we get Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and consolation of the South as a Republican stronghold to this very day. I don't think you guys post these tidbits as innocent historical trivia. I think you intend them to imply something about Democrats today, but ignorant of political history, you don't realize the rest of the story that follows. Democrats absolutely used to be the party of racist oppression. For the last 60 years it's been the Republicans. Things change.

Eh, just more racists boasting about how they won't watch an American citizen because he's brown and of Hispanic descent. Dummies don't know the difference between Mexico and Puerto Rico.

Freaked out? No, just offended by blatant cronyism and corruption. Paying a public official 10x the market value for a home is rightly seen as a bribe. Perhaps the law hasn't caught up to IP, but the principle is exactly the same.